The Territorial Dispute over Dokdo Essay Example for Free

The Territorial Dispute over Dokdo Essay Dokdo is also recognized as the Liancourt Rocks. It consists of two tiny rocky islets, which are encircled by 33 smaller rocks. The Dokdo islets are situated around 215 kilometers off the eastern border of Korea. The two Islets that make up Dokdo are known as Suhdo and Dongdo. The estimated entire surface area covered by Dokdo is 0. 186 square kilometers. Both rocks that make Dokdo, actually are the remains of a prehistoric volcanic hollow and are a asylum for Petrels and black-tailed gulls and more than a few partially prevalent plants. The Liancourt Rocks is known as Tokto in Korea and it is known as Takeshima in Japan. Sovereignty over the isles is contested between Japan and South Korea. South Korea has commanded Dokdo since July 1954. Both the Korean and Japanese names have altered from time to time. Both of the countries claim an extensive historical and geographical connection with the isles. With this claim, the question that emerges is that why it is so important that both the countries are fighting for the small islets. The name given to the Dokdo, i. e. Liancourt Rocks has come from the French whaling ship Liancourt, which represented the islets in 1849. The rationale behind this fighting is that both the countries have several concerns regarding the Dokdo’s surrounding waters and seabed including areas that may embrace some 600 million tons of natural gas. This gas hydrate can become the next period’s energy origin. In addition, seafood is also the imperative resource for both the countries. The Korean Japanese Claims Koreans claim that Dokdo is an constitutional dominion of Korea as it has been a part of Korean territory since 512 A. D. The first Japanese had written a record on Dokdo and the Records on observations in Onshu have been published in 1667, which admit the fact that Koreans have right over Dokdo. The Japanese declare that they had held Dokdo in the Japanese Empire in 1905. This act of Japanese was opposed by Koreans as they said that Japanese are taking advantage of Koreas political weakness vis-a-vis. Koreans rightfully argue for the Dokdo as at the time when Japan declared that they were containing Dokdo into their empire, Korea was not able to effectively protest the Japanese action because Japan had previously taken charge of the foreign matters of Korea by means of the Protectorate Treaty of 1905, which is also known as the Eulsa Treaty or the Second Japan-Korea Agreement. The confirmation of the treaty itself had been impelled on Korea by the Japanese commission, which shows that Japanese were wrong in their claim to Dokdo. All the history of Dokdo and both the countries’ claims represents the Korean side and also points out that the Japanese did not notify the Korean Government of their claim until 1906. In 1906, Korean officials at both confined and nationwide levels recognized the facts and documented the Japanese action as an encroachment of Korean sovereignty. On the other hand, due to the loss of their nation’s freedom and foreign matters potentiality, no action was taken by them. In 1947, the Japanese Foreign Ministry mentioned the U. S. occupation authorities regarding Japan’s assert to reign over both Ullung and Dokdo Island. Since then, throughout the peace treaty negotiations, Japan desired to decide U. S. notion pertaining to the island. The Japanese ministers refused Korea’s ownership on the bases that there was no existence of the Korean name on the island, which is quite wrong. Japanese also tried to regain the Dokdo during the negotiations of the peace treaty, but they were failed. Dokdo’s sovereignty was not decided by the peace treaty due to the weaknesses of the president of the Republic of Korea, who did not efficiently concentrated his government’s attending on the ownership of Dokdo over Korea’s territorial pertains. Government of Korea never daunted to allow for a scholarly study of the Korean historical record on Dokdo and due to this, it had faced an unresolved dispute from Japanese, whereas Japanese had undertaken an extensive study on the history of the island to which Japan had used as the basis for its claim regarding its sovereignty over Dokdo. Due to all these weaknesses of Korea, they are not able to prove records in their favor, but all these things do not matter as the truth is this that the Dokdo ownership truly lies in the hands of Koreans. References Dokdo History. (2007). Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://english. dokdohistory. com/dokdo-history/dokdo-administrative-district. html Dokdo or Takeshima. (2009, February). Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://www. boston. com/bigpicture/2009/02/dokdo_or_takeshima. html The Territorial Dispute over Dokdo. (2008). Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://www. junanworld. pe. kr/595 Lovmo, M. S. The Territorial Dispute over Dokdo. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://www. geocities. com/mlovmo/page4. html A Brief Background of Dokdo Takeshima Island. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://www. dokdo-takeshima.com/ Dokdo: The Territorial Dispute between Japan and South Korea. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://www. pages. drexel. edu/~tm76/politics. doc Dokdo East Sea. (2009). Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://www. korea. net/issues/issue_dokdo_eastsea. asp? from=dokdo_eastsea The Far East of the Korean Territory. (2004). Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://www. dokdocorea. com/ The History of Dokdo. (2007). Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://www. dokdocorea. com/report/history_dokdo. pdf Dokdo in the East Sea of Korea. (2005). Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://www.indymedia. org. uk/en/regions/london/2005/03/307419. html Disputes over Ullungdo and Tokdo at the End of the 17th Century. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://www2. gol. com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_3. html Japans Unfounded Territorial Claims about Dokdo Dispute. (2007). Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://english. dokdohistory. com/dokdo-history/dokdo-dispute. html Weinstein, M. (2006, May). South Korea-Japan Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute: Toward Confrontation. Japan Focus. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://japanfocus.

Realism vs. Liberalism :: essays research papers fc

International Politics Gerard Chretien Professor: Jennifer Dwyer May 2, 2001 The realist perspective on international political economy can be seen in the United States international trade policy with China. The United States being an established world power seeks to further enhance its international role by engaging in trade with another nation, that being China, this reflects the realist main idea that the state occupies center stage in global political affairs.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The United States willingness to engage in the world market signals the idea of self national interest that remind many of the policy followed by European states during the Monarch era. The idea is to maximize your own agenda, at the same token minimize your states possible loss through risky policy engagement. The realist view reflects many of today’s policy regarding international trade with China.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  On the other end of the spectrum, you have the liberals who soundly believe that the state should have a very limited impact in the international political economic arena. They feel that the states interest and their goals change along with the context of the I.P.E. situation. The liberal perspective also offers the idea of cooperation among negotiating states that oppose the realist view that cooperation has an underlining meaning behind it.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The realists’ concepts and views ultimately render a more significant portrayal of U.S.-China international trade in comparison to the liberals’ perspective. It shows that the policy implemented reflects the United States sole interest in relative gains, in comparison with the liberals’ idea of absolute gain. In other words, the United States seeks to benefit from its interaction with China only for the sole purpose of increasing its wealth and power.

A View Inside The Westboro Baptist Church Essay

Unlike most modern religious groups, the Westboro Baptist Church is unique in the fact that the organization doesn’t meet in a modern church setting. Instead, the Westboro Baptist Church meets on Sundays to picket and protest the funerals of people whom they feel have created blasphemous acts against God. This recently included the funeral of Apple’s co-founder Steve Jobs. In an October 7th cbsnews. com article journalist Edecio Martinez quoted Margie Phelps as posting on twitter, â€Å"He had huge platform†¦gave God no glory and taught sin. This in return yielded a great a greatly deal of responses by media, family, and some other government officials as well. This is the story behind the Westboro Baptist Church and its opposing counterparts. It is first important to understand the dynamics of the Westboro Baptist Church. Known for its fight against the alternative lifestyles of the homosexual community, the members of the Westboro Baptist Church have often times been referred to as the serial protesters and also have been characterized as a hate group. This church is an independent church founded by Fred Phelps in 1955. The group contains 71 members most of which are of Phelps family. Their congregations include picketing and the desecration of the American flag. Theologically speaking they refer to themselves as Calvinist. The church’s view is that most religious groups are Satan worshipers, frauds, and teach lies. They believe that â€Å"God Hates fags† and that it should be a crime. The two most notable groups that Westboro Baptist Church has chosen to picket are homosexuals and celebrities. This organization is without a question unique in its own rights. Since the Westboro Baptist Church popped up on the scene in Nov. 27, 1955, the public has had something to say about them. In efforts to expires the disapproval of the Westboro Baptist Church other groups have met in areas where the church was picketing and turned away from churches protesters. Perhaps one of the most famous counter protests happened after the September 11 attacks. One young man Jared Dailey , stood across from the group and held a sign that displayed, â€Å"NOT today Fred. † Two days later the number shifted from 1 to 86 people standing across from the group. In future protest against the group the slogan that began Dailey used has been popular in use. As a means to counter the Westboro Baptist church organizations such as, The Boston Center for the Arts and an ad-hoc group in Richmond countered the protest by doing pledges and then donating the money to LGBT (Lesbian, Bisexual, and Trans-gender) organizational projects. Others have arranged protest and hackers have been known to hack the Westboro batiste Church websites and disable them from the internet. There have been violent actions also against the group. There have been recorded incidents of angry mob attempting to attack the group, a fire near their meeting lace estimated at $10,000 in damage, and also Army Veteran Ryan Newell was arrested with ammo and an attempt on an attack of the group. For the most part the general public objects to the Westboro Baptist Church and their beliefs. Arguments on both sides of the debacle have both taking time out to use the First Amendment in their defense. The Westboro Baptist Church found themselves in hot water when the father of the Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder sued them for defamation of character, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress on June 5,2006. Although the court threw out the defamation and privacy suits due to the First Amendment the trial still went on for other charges. The family argued that even though the first amendment gives an American citizen the right to free speech it still is limited. On the judges mark the first amendment was recited and let it be known that if vulgar, offensive, or shocking statements were made, then that would be grounds of a guilty plea. The Plea was guilty on behalf of Fred and the other members of the Phelps family. The Westboro Baptist Church also took action as well, on July 21,2006; the ACLU (The American Civil Liberties Union) of eastern Missouri filed a suit for Shirley L. Phelps-Roper. This suit stated that the Missouri law saying that no one was allowed to picket in front of a church or a funeral an hour before or an hour after was preventing her from utilizing her right to religious liberty and free speech. Although the argument was relevant the courts still shot down the suit stating that â€Å"in individual states and cities the law is interpreted as they see fit because the amendment is vague as to the terms and conditions. The Phelps family continued on still to federal court in hopes of a win. On both sides of the argument each have had valid point that the first amendment protects both sides. As the situation continued, it called for the Supreme Court to step in. The Supreme Court stated that even though they do not agree with the Westboro’s acts they still have to aside with them due to the First Amendment of freedom of speech. The Supreme Court quoted â€Å"that freedom of speech is so central to the nation that it protects cruel and unpopular protests – even, in this case, at the moment of a family’s most profound grief. The Westboro Baptist Church is an organization of people with their own beliefs and opinions. Their religion no matter how extreme it may be is still what they believe to be a religion. Time has shown the world many interpretations of God worshipers, and many interpretations of religion, and the Bible. This is not the first group to have these views and probably won’t be the last. The world is a big place with many different people and it is important to look past the ignorance and see the importance of accepting everyone for who they are like it or not.

The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

On the morning of June 28, 1914, a 19-year-old Bosnian nationalist named Gavrilo Princip shot and killed Sophie and Franz Ferdinand, the future heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary (the second-largest empire in Europe) in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo. Gavrilo Princip, a simple postman’s son, probably didn’t realize at the time that by firing those three fateful shots, he was starting a chain reaction that would lead directly to the start of World War I. A Multinational Empire In the summer of 1914, the by now 47-year-old Austro-Hungarian Empire stretched from the Austrian Alps in the west to the Russian border in the east and reached far into the Balkans to the south (map). It was the second-largest European nation next to Russia and boasted a multi-ethnic population made up of at least ten different nationalities. These included Austrian Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Romanians, Italians, Croats and Bosnians among others. But the empire was far from united. Its various ethnic groups and nationalities were constantly competing for control in a state that was predominantly ruled by the Austrian-German Habsburg family and the Hungarian nationals—both of whom resisted sharing the majority of their power and influence with the rest of the empire’s diverse population. For many of those outside the German-Hungarian ruling class, the empire represented nothing more than an undemocratic, repressive regime occupying their traditional homelands. Nationalistic sentiments and struggles for autonomy often resulted in public riots and clashes with the ruling authorities such as in Vienna in 1905 and in Budapest in 1912. The Austro-Hungarians responded harshly to incidents of unrest, sending in troops to keep the peace and suspending local parliaments. Nevertheless, by 1914 unrest was a constant in almost every part of the realm. Franz Josef and Franz Ferdinand: A Tense Relationship By 1914, Emperor Franz Josef—a member of the long-standing royal House of Habsburg—had ruled Austria (called Austria-Hungary from 1867) for nearly 66 years. As a monarch, Franz Josef was a staunch traditionalist and remained so well into the later years of his reign, despite the many great changes that had led to the weakening of monarchical power in other parts of Europe. He resisted all notions of political reform and viewed himself as the last of the old-school European monarchs. Emperor Franz Josef fathered two children. The first, however, died in infancy and the second committed suicide in 1889. By right of succession, the emperor’s nephew, Franz Ferdinand, became next in line to rule Austria-Hungary. The uncle and the nephew often clashed over differences in approach to ruling the vast empire. Franz Ferdinand had little patience for the ostentatious pomp of the ruling Habsburg class. Nor did he agree with his uncle’s harsh stance towards the rights and autonomy of the empire’s various national groups. He felt the old system, which allowed ethnic Germans and ethnic Hungarians to dominate, could not last. Franz Ferdinand believed the best way to regain the population’s loyalty was to make concessions towards the Slavs and other ethnicities by allowing them greater sovereignty and influence over the governance of the empire. He envisioned the eventual emergence of a type of â€Å"United States of Greater Austria,† with the empire’s many nationalities sharing equally in its administration. He believed strongly that this was the only way to keep the empire together and to secure his own future as its ruler. The result of these disagreements was that the emperor had little love for his nephew and bristled at the thought of Franz Ferdinand’s future ascension to the throne. The tension between them grew even stronger when, in 1900, Franz Ferdinand took as his wife the Countess Sophie Chotek. Franz Josef did not consider Sophie to be an appropriate future empress as she was not directly descended from royal, imperial blood. Serbia: The Great Hope of the Slavs In 1914, Serbia was one of the few independent Slavic states in Europe, having gained its autonomy piecemeal throughout the previous century after hundreds of years of Ottoman rule. The majority of Serbs were staunch nationalists and the kingdom saw itself as the great hope for the sovereignty of Slavic peoples in the Balkans.  The great dream of Serbian nationalists was the unification of Slavic peoples into a single sovereign state. The Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian empires, however, were perpetually struggling for control and influence over the Balkans and Serbs felt under constant threat from their powerful neighbors. Austria-Hungary, in particular, posed a threat due to its close proximity to Serbia’s northern border. The situation was exasperated by the fact that pro-Austrian monarchs—with close ties to the Habsburgs—had ruled Serbia since the late 19th century. The last of these monarchs, King Alexander I, was deposed and executed in 1903 by a clandestine society comprised of nationalistic Serbian army officers known as the Black Hand. It was this same group that would come to help plan and support the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand eleven years later. Dragutin Dimitrijević and the Black Hand The aim of the Black Hand was the unification of all southern Slavic peoples into the single Slavic nation-state of Yugoslavia—with Serbia as its leading member—and to protect those Slavs and Serbs still living under Austro-Hungarian rule by any means necessary. The group relished in the ethnic and nationalistic strife that had overtaken Austria-Hungary and sought to stoke the flames of its decline. Anything that was potentially bad for its powerful northern neighbor was seen as potentially good for Serbia. The high-ranking, Serbian, military positions of its founding members put the group in a unique position to carry out clandestine operations deep within Austria-Hungary itself. This included army colonel Dragutin Dimitrijević, who would later become the head of Serbian military intelligence and leader of the Black Hand. The Black Hand frequently sent spies into Austria-Hungary to commit acts of sabotage or to foment discontent amongst Slavic peoples inside the empire. Their various anti-Austrian propaganda campaigns were designed, especially, to attract and recruit angry and restless Slavic youths with strong nationalistic sentiments. One of these youths—a Bosnian, and a member of the Black Hand-backed youth movement known as Young Bosnia—would personally carry out the murders of Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, and thus help to unleash the biggest crisis ever to face Europe and the world to that point. Gavrilo Princip and Young Bosnia Gavrilo Princip was born and raised in the countryside of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which had been annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1908 as a means to preempt Ottoman expansion into the region and to thwart Serbia’s aims for a greater Yugoslavia. Like many of the Slavic peoples living under Austro-Hungarian rule, Bosnians dreamed of the day when they would gain their independence and join a larger Slavic union alongside Serbia. Princip, a young nationalist, left for Serbia in 1912 to continue the studies he had undertaken in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina. While there, he fell in with a group of fellow nationalist Bosnian youths calling themselves Young Bosnia. The young men in Young Bosnia would sit long hours together and discuss their ideas for bringing about change for Balkan Slavs. They agreed that violent, terroristic methods would help to bring about a speedy demise of the Habsburg rulers and ensure the eventual sovereignty of their native homeland. When, in the spring of 1914, they learned of Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s visit to Sarajevo that June, they decided he would be a perfect target for assassination. But they would need the help of a highly organized group like the Black Hand to pull off their plan. A Plan Is Hatched The Young Bosnians’ plan to do away with the Archduke eventually reached the ears of Black Hand leader Dragutin Dimitrijević, the architect of the 1903 overthrow of Serbia’s king and by now chief of Serbian military intelligence. Dimitrijević had been made aware of Princip and his friends by a subordinate officer and fellow Black Hand member who had complained of being pestered by a group of Bosnian youths bent on killing Franz Ferdinand. By all accounts, Dimitrijević very casually agreed to help the young men; although secretly, he may have received Princip and his friends as a blessing. The official reason given for the Archduke’s visit was to observe Austro-Hungarian military exercises outside the city, as the emperor had appointed him inspector general of the armed forces the previous year. Dimitrijević, however, felt sure the visit was nothing more than a smokescreen for a coming Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia, though no evidence exists to suggest such an invasion was ever planned. Furthermore, Dimitrijević saw a golden opportunity to do away with a future ruler who could seriously undermine Slavic nationalistic interests, were he ever to be allowed to ascend to the throne. The Serbian nationalists knew well of Franz Ferdinand’s ideas for political reform and feared that any concessions made by Austria-Hungary towards the empire’s Slavic population could potentially undermine Serbian attempts at fomenting discontent and inciting Slavic nationalists to rise up against their Habsburg rulers. A plan was devised to send Princip, along with Young Bosnian members Nedjelko ÄÅ'abrinović and Trifko GrabeÃ… ¾, to Sarajevo, where they were to meet up with six other conspirators and carry out the assassination of the Archduke. Dimitrijević, fearing the assassins’ inevitable capture and questioning, instructed the men to swallow cyanide capsules and commit suicide immediately after the attack. No one was to be allowed to learn who had authorized the murders. Concerns Over Safety Initially, Franz Ferdinand never intended to visit Sarajevo itself; he was to keep himself outside the city for the task of observing military exercises. To this day it is unclear why he chose to visit the city, which was a hotbed of Bosnian nationalism and thus a very hostile environment for any visiting Habsburg. One account suggests that Bosnia’s governor-general, Oskar Potiorek—who may have been seeking a political boost at Franz Ferdinand’s expense—urged the Archduke to pay the city an official, all day visit. Many in the Archduke’s entourage, however, protested out of fear for the Archduke’s safety. What Bardolff and the rest of the Archduke’s entourage did not know was that June 28 was a Serb national holiday—a day that represented Serbia’s historical struggle against foreign invaders. After much debate and negotiation, the Archduke finally bent to Potiorek’s wishes and agreed to visit the city on June 28, 1914, but only in an unofficial capacity and for only a few hours in the morning. Getting Into Position Gavrilo Princip and his co-conspirators arrived in Bosnia sometime in early June. They had been ushered across the border from Serbia by a network of Black Hand operatives, who provided them with faked documents stating the three men were customs officials and thus entitled to free passage. Once inside Bosnia, they met up with six other conspirators and made their way toward Sarajevo, arriving in the city sometime around June 25. There they stayed in various hostels and even lodged with family to await Archduke’s visit three days later. Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, arrived in Sarajevo sometime before ten in the morning of June 28. After a short welcoming ceremony at the train station, the couple was ushered into a 1910 Grà ¤f Stift touring car and, along with a small procession of other cars carrying members of their entourage, made their way to the Town Hall for an official reception. It was a sunny day and the car’s canvas top had been taken down to allow for the crowds to better see the visitors. A map of the Archduke’s route had been published in the newspapers prior to his visit, so spectators would know where to stand in order to catch a glimpse of the couple as they rode by. The procession was to move down the Appel Quay along the northern bank of the Miljacka River. Princip and his six co-conspirators had also obtained the route from the newspapers. That morning, after receiving their weapons and their instructions from a local Black Hand operative, they split up and positioned themselves at strategic points along the riverbank. Muhamed MehmedbaÃ… ¡ić and Nedeljko ÄÅ'abrinović mingled with the crowds and positioned themselves near the Cumurja Bridge where they would be the first of the conspirators to see the procession going by. Vaso ÄÅ'ubrilović and Cvjetko Popović positioned themselves further up the Appel Quay. Gavrilo Princip and Trifko GrabeÃ… ¾ stood near the Lateiner Bridge toward the center of the route while Danilo Ilić moved about trying to find a good position. A Tossed Bomb MehmedbaÃ… ¡ić would be the first to see the car appear; however, as it approached, he froze with fear and was unable to take action. ÄÅ'abrinović, on the other hand, acted without hesitation. He pulled a bomb from his pocket, struck the detonator against a lamp post, and tossed it at the Archduke’s car. The car’s driver, Leopold Loyka, noticed the object flying towards them and hit the accelerator. The bomb landed behind the car where it exploded, causing debris to fly and nearby shop windows to shatter. About 20 onlookers were injured. The Archduke and his wife were safe, however, save for a small scratch on Sophie’s neck caused by flying debris from the explosion. Immediately after throwing the bomb, ÄÅ'abrinović swallowed his vial of cyanide and jumped over a railing down into the riverbed. The cyanide, however, failed to work and ÄÅ'abrinović was caught by a group of policemen and dragged away. The Appel Quay had erupted into chaos by now and the Archduke had ordered the driver to stop so that the injured parties could be attended to. Once satisfied that nobody was seriously injured, he ordered the procession to continue to the Town Hall. The other conspirators along the route had by now received news of ÄÅ'abrinović’s failed attempt and most of them, probably out of fear, decided to leave the scene. Princip and GrabeÃ… ¾, however, remained. The procession continued on to the Town Hall, where Sarajevo’s mayor launched into his welcoming speech as if nothing had happened. The Archduke immediately interrupted and admonished him, outraged at the bombing attempt that had put him and his wife in such danger and questioned the apparent lapse in security.   The Archduke’s wife, Sophie, gently urged her husband to calm down. The mayor was allowed to continue his speech in what was later described by witnesses as a bizarre and otherworldly spectacle. Despite reassurances from Potiorek that the danger had passed, the Archduke insisted on abandoning the day’s remaining schedule; he wanted to visit the hospital to check on the wounded. Some discussion on the safest way to proceed to the hospital ensued and it was decided that quickest way would be to go by the same route. The Assassination Franz Ferdinand’s car sped down the Appel Quay, where the crowds had thinned out by now. The driver, Leopold Loyka, seemed to have been unaware of the change of plans. He turned left at the Lateiner Bridge toward Franz Josef Strasse as if to proceed to the National Museum, which the Archduke had planned to visit next prior to the assassination attempt. The car drove past a delicatessen where Gavrilo Princip had bought a sandwich. He had resigned himself to the fact that the plot was a failure and that the Archduke’s return route would have been altered by now. Somebody yelled out to the driver that he had made a mistake and should have kept going along the Appel Quay to the hospital. Loyka stopped the vehicle and attempted to reverse as Princip emerged from the delicatessen and noticed, to his great surprise, the Archduke and his wife only a few feet from him. He pulled out his pistol and fired. Witnesses would later say they heard three shots. Princip was immediately seized and beaten by bystanders and the gun wrested from his hand. He managed to swallow his cyanide before being tackled to the ground but it, too, failed to work. Count Franz Harrach, the owner of the Grà ¤f Stift car that was carrying the royal couple, heard Sophie cry out to her husband, â€Å"What has happened to you?† before she appeared to faint and slump over in her seat. (King and Woolmans, 2013) Harrach then noticed that blood was trickling from the Archduke’s mouth and ordered the driver to drive to the Hotel Konak—where the royal couple was supposed to stay during their visit—as quickly as possible. The Archduke was still alive but barely audible as he continually muttered, â€Å"It is nothing.† Sophie had completely lost consciousness. The Archduke, too, eventually fell silent. The Couple’s Wounds Upon arriving at the Konak, the Archduke and his wife were carried up to their suite and attended to by regimental surgeon Eduard Bayer. The Archduke’s coat was removed to reveal a wound in his neck just above the collarbone. Blood was gurgling from his mouth. After a few moments, it was determined that Franz Ferdinand had died from his wound. â€Å"His Highness’s suffering is over,† the surgeon announced. (King and Woolmans, 2013 Sophie had been laid out on a bed in the next room. Everyone still assumed she had simply fainted but when her mistress removed her clothes she discovered blood and a bullet wound in her lower right abdomen. She had already been dead by the time they had reached the Konak. Aftermath The assassination sent shockwaves throughout Europe. Austro-Hungarian officials discovered the Serbian roots of the plot and declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914 -- exactly one month after the assassination. Fearing reprisals from Russia, which had been a strong ally of Serbia, Austria-Hungary now sought to activate its alliance with Germany in an attempt to scare the Russians out of taking action. Germany, in turn, sent Russia an ultimatum to stop mobilizing, which Russia ignored. The two powers—Russia and Germany—declared war on each other on August 1, 1914. Britain and France would soon enter the conflict on the side of Russia. Old alliances, which had been dormant since the 19th century, had suddenly created a dangerous situation across the continent. The war that ensued, World War I, would last four years and claim the lives of millions. Gavrilo Princip never lived to see the end of the conflict he helped to unleash. After a lengthy trial, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison (he avoided the death penalty due to his young age). While in prison, he contracted tuberculosis and died there on April 28, 1918. Sources Greg King and Sue Woolmans, The Assassination of the Archduke (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2013), 207.